PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC MARTTI AHTISAARI AT THE ALKIO INSTITUTE, 10.6.1997

CITIZENS AND SECURITY IN A GLOBAL ERA

Santeri Alkio was a writer of considerable stature and a staunch believer in people's capacity for inner growth. His influence on society has transcended the boundaries between political parties. That the venue where I have this opportunity to speak on security is the Alkio Institute gives me great pleasure.

Folk high schools provide an important addition to Finnish educational work. After all, ignorance increases insecurity. I wish to greet all students and staff of our country's folk high schools and wish you the best of success in your important work. Particularly, I extend my warmest congratulations to the Alkio Institute as it celebrates its golden jubilee.

I shall now go on to examine security from a perspective that relates very emphatically to global challenges. I am trying to approach the subject from above all the viewpoint of citizens and civil society. The importance of the state as a guarantor of national security is, of course, still central. Expansion of the social rights provided by the welfare state has also strengthened the role of the state as a guardian of internal security. On the other hand, the financial costs of the welfare state and many new security concerns have led to a position in which there is a need to broaden the perspective from which we examine security.

In conditions of globalisation and growing uncertainty, a secure life is something that all or at least most of us aspire to. For it to be achieved, there is a need for deepening cooperation between states, but also for social justice, stable economic development and an everyday life without fear of becoming the victim of a violent crime.

During the post-war years in which we were building up our welfare state, we learned to appreciate our society precisely for the internal security that it gave us. Some time ago, Archbishop John Vikström wisely pointed out that when we assess the dissolution of the welfare state it must be understood that large segments of the population have been able to consider this state their "people's home". For them, therefore, the welfare state has been linked to the kinds of emotional values and mental associations that the word "home" evokes. "Then, naturally, special weight has been accorded to security," Archbishop Vikström stressed.

Now we face a situation in which the traditional Finnish people's home, where we use this definition, has been confronted with many challenges arising from pressures for change. Development requires a renewal of some of the structures of our people's home. We must create the social security of citizens on a partially new basis.

One can imagine that in the present situation it would give some people satisfaction to seek solutions by curling up inside the seemingly secure borders of our people's home. I understand that attitude as such. Globalisation and ever-closer international interaction in various spheres of life are, however, a reality with which our people must come to terms, not reject it. The Finns are fundamentally realists. Our task is to manage this situation in a manner that strengthens Finland's and the Finns' security.

* * *

Our era can justifiably be described as global. Of course, internationalisation has been going on for centuries, but a feature different from what has happened in the past is that great population masses that are being drawn into the ongoing transformation. In fact, the whole of our century has been one of globalisation. Unfortunately, only in an emphatically negative way. Two terrible world wars bound nearly the whole of the globe together in destructive endeavours. The Cold War that followed them was also the first global order of confrontation and downright fear. We lived in the shadow of nuclear bombs. Thus it is no wonder that we have learned to think of security questions one-sidedly in terms of military concepts, as systems of fear and deterrence. And additionally: we have learned to think of security as the ability to isolate ourselves from a dangerous world.

The causes of globalisation in the present era are strongly anchored in the economic, social and technological foundation of Western societies. What globalisation involves today is emphatically a two-way development: unprecedented opportunities are unfolding before us, but also enormous new security concerns.

First of all, global markets for goods, culture, ideas and information have come into being. Economic growth is at its most intense in China and many South-East Asian countries. The global economy is being strengthened by, above all, agreements liberalising world trade and new technology. The highly-respected British magazine The Economist wrote some time ago that "The death of distance as a determinant of the cost of communications will probably be the single most important economic force shaping society in the first half of the next century; it will alter, in ways that are only dimly imaginable, decisions about where people live and work; concepts of national borders; patterns of international trade. Its effects will be as pervasive as those of the discovery of electricity."

On the other hand, there are many phenomena associated with this change that we cannot even properly guess at yet. Examples include the effects that technological development will have on agriculture and industry in developing countries. However, it is already possible to outline one problem. Globalisation means that for the first time in history unemployment is becoming a world-wide problem, which it will not be possible to solve without profound structural reforms. Although the labour market has not globalised, the global economy is affecting everyone's position in it.

All in all, the effects of globalisation on people's livelihoods and other vital social questions are still largely unknown. However, it can already be said that the welfare state and with it the security of citizens are having to face the challenge of globalisation.

Yet, the positive political factors of globalisation are coming to the fore only now, after the Cold War and on the threshold of a new century and millennium. The threat of a major war has receded. Democracy and a global economy developing on the basis of agreements are creating a foundation for a more enduring state of peace in various parts of the globe. I hope that the positive factors of globalisation will be our era's "breakthrough forces", which should create the room for people to grow.

Nevertheless, one feature of globalisation is linked specifically to our new security concerns. I am referring to global development trends, some of which are alarming. Indicative of how uncertain UN demographic forecasts are is that estimates of population growth by on the planet by the year 2050 range from eight to thirteen billion. Further, only a small change in fertility could mean a global population of 28 billion in the year 2150. A population of that size is estimated to be at least fifteen billion more than the planet can sustain. Associated with population growth are questions relating to the sufficiency of food and raw material supplies. Researchers have been confounded to find that the ratio of increase in grain output to population growth, having been developing favourably, has gone onto a negative curve in this decade. Since 1989, the global fish catch per capita has declined by about ten per cent as a result of overfishing. Thus we can fear food shortages, and even catastrophic famines.

Economic growth, especially in Asia, has led to a substantial change in estimates of the sufficiency of certain raw materials, such as oil. Researchers are increasingly concerned that as oil becomes scarcer - and more expensive - the use of fuels that cause atmospheric problems, such as coal, will increase. Already now, global warming is serious enough as an environmental concern - and thereby also a security one - affecting the whole world.

It has been said that at least part of the next century will be spent solving the threats to security that we have brought into being in the twentieth. We Finns are genuinely concerned about the internal uncertainty in our neighbouring country Russia, but above all about the nuclear hazards that have arisen as a legacy of the collapse of communism. Resources must be put into managing them. That will not be possible without close cooperation in the international community, especially between the EU, Russia and the United States.

* * *

Organised crime has not yet gained a foothold in Finland, although where individual crimes of violence, and family violence, are concerned, the development in this country has, regrettably, been giving rise to concern. We must focus growing attention on the various forms in which crime manifests itself. That is especially because organised crime, operating effectively across national boundaries, has become a major security concern. Speaking at the World Ministerial Conference on Organised Transnational Crime in Naples in 1994, UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali coined the phrase "crime multinationals", against which the world organisation should take more effective measures. The operations of the criminal empire that he was referring to encompass everything from prostitution to the arms trade, terrorism, economic measures intended to weaken the state, trade in human organs, drugs trafficking, allowing nuclear materials to fall into the hands of criminals, and so on. Thus organised crime is a truly global threat to security.

In Finland, a debate on banning motorcycle gangs, which operate in many countries and have committed criminal offences, has rightly begun. That the right of association guaranteed by the Constitution would be violated if the activities of such gangs, or such a gang, were prohibited by law has been regarded as a problem. A democracy must always be able to repel not only external threats to its citizens, but also internal ones. If, in this respect, there is a need to ban organisations that cause threats of this kind, those who bear political responsibility must understand what their responsibility is.

It is encouraging that the EU is making crime fighting a key word in its security policy for the next century. In Finland, the official agencies responsible for internal security enjoy the trust of citizens. Our professional skills are of a high level. Thus Finland can take an active role in the EU and other international contexts.

It has been said that the further our understanding reaches back into the past, the further we will be able to see into the future. Why did Europe, the heartland of world civilisation, drift into major wars earlier this century? The factors in the background were nation-states' militarised competition for influence, living space and raw materials as well as Europe's complicated history in general. Finally, the competition was waged between ideologies, democracy and communism. The Cold War was finally brought to an end through the efforts of popular movements, whose members peacefully broke down the walls, prejudices and fears that had impeded development. An aware and responsible citizen is the best guarantee of international security.

It ought to be remembered that nation-states originally built their borders, and their military defence systems, to protect their citizens. Now those systems are being developed so that we can live safely in a more open global community.

Thus one of the foundations of the nation-state is changing. With advancing integration, some aspects of the political and economic foundations on which nation-states are built are likewise having to be reassessed. In this situation the role of citizens will have to be looked at in a new light. Civil society is assuming tasks that were earlier the preserve of the state. That is an important development from, especially, the perspective of the development of security and welfare within the state.

A new beginning has now been made, a new attempt to build a peaceful world community founded largely on a sense of collective responsibility and aspiring to produce social innovations. Military means will continue to be needed. In the final analysis, only the Finns can be responsible for the defence of Finland. Their preparedness to do so must be cherished. But the globalising world community also needs joint arrangements involving military structures of collective security. On the level of the United Nations, the OSCE and Europe, these are being created on a foundation that rests on the EU, the WEU and NATO and its systems.

I wish to emphasise also in this context that the rapprochement between Russia and NATO that began in Helsinki this spring and led to the charter confirmed in Paris meant an important breakthrough in dealing with the after-effects of the Cold War. We avoided a new confrontation, and we were able to get back onto a course of stable cooperation. The aim is to create a common European security area, where the use of military force is restricted to collectively acceptable measures. That goal is closer than it has ever been. Closely associated with it will be determined implementation of the EU's eastward enlargement in the next decade.

Liberalisation of world trade through agreements, respect for human rights and responsible citizenship form the foundation of global stability. Democratic states have not waged war against each other. The historical argument for the European Union springs from that: between themselves, the member states of the European Union are building an area of common responsibility and a single market. The European Union is striving to ensure a secure living environment for its citizens. Support for a policy of collective responsibility has increased in the EU countries. Besides the remodelling of the welfare state that has become inescapable, we need a kind of social investment policy in people, in the intellectual capital that is created through them.

When we in Finland discuss Economic and Monetary Union, EMU, can we understand it in any other way than on the basis of Europe's own history and the global challenges that our continent faces? The simple goal with EMU is to respond on the European level to a global challenge: to create a continent-wide stable currency area that will provide the states of Europe with a foundation on which their economies can cope with global competition.

Yet we must remember the history of European integration. It has not been a straightforward onward progress, but rather coupled to the internal development of countries and citizens' changing opinions and moods. And how could it be otherwise? What is involved is a democratic community of states, where integration must in the final analysis follow the will of the people. The history of integration always contains both continuity and periods of upheaval.

The concept of democracy has broadened from civil rights through political rights to social rights. In a country like Finland for example, the right to education and lifelong learning has become an irrevocable civil right. Genuine democracy and the responsible citizen are the best guarantees of security.

A profound transformation is in progress on the European level. Nation-states and cooperation between them are being put to the test. Lengthening unemployment is creating differences between citizens, also in Finland. An employment system based on steady jobs is being rapidly replaced by one conducive to differentiation, because the proportion of constant, full time jobs in it is declining. Additionally, part-year employment relationships are assuming a significant role. At the same time, prolonged joblessness has begun affecting the greatest part of the unemployed. Of those persons, the over-50s are mainly excluded from the labour market and depend on the income transfers they receive through the social security system. A development of this kind segregates citizens unfairly.

Unemployment creates social instability, feeds despair. It provides a growth substrate for extreme political movements. Combatting unemployment is increasingly a question of democracy defending itself.

The opportunities that applied technology offers in every sector of manufacturing and services are only now beginning to open up in earnest. Only a small proportion of industrial companies have gone over to using more advanced technology. In this transformation, human labour is being systematically replaced in all sectors of production, and everywhere in the world. At the same time, however, it is being postulated that we will face a labour shortage in the next few years.

The era of transition in which we are living is one of astonishing complexity. The questions involved are baffling for the most adept researchers studying them, and much more so for those who make the decisions in society and citizens wondering about their jobs

Technological solutions and their application have meant an unprecedented soaring of productivity. Now it is time to discuss the social consequences of technology as well as how to ensure a basic livelihood in conditions of uncertainty.

One thing is certain. The era of the passivating welfare state is over. We must first get rid of its most negative features: those forming a system of assistance and dependence, in which the recipient of aid become in practice a prisoner of the welfare state. Citizens must become more active builders of their own livelihoods and social security. How to make progress in this is perhaps the biggest challenge facing our welfare society. The alternative is to be found by combining independent action and enterprise on the part of people with basic security.

* * *

In an era of globalisation, solutions to national problems must increasingly often be found through international cooperation. The security of citizens and global adaptation are more clearly related to each other than they were in the past.

Two hundred years ago the German philosopher Immanuel Kant outlined his view that world peace would gradually strengthen. What was important was growing world trade, the consolidation of democracy, the development of international institutions and finally growth of the destructiveness of warfare to an unmanageable level. This view of Kant's comes through also in Santeri Alkio's writings. There was historical depth in his view of the world. He hoped that Europe would develop into a region of cooperation. That is the direction we are headed.